In the current phase of globalization, financial, ecological, political and social crises are occurring simultaneously and magnifying each other in unpredictable ways. From the Fukushima nuclear meltdown reshaping German politics and the European power industry, to America’s sub-prime mortgage meltdown threatening the Eurozone, such chain reactions are undermining an already fragile stability.

Large countries and blocs such as the U.S., China and the EU, and new groupings like the G-20 and the BRICS, are grappling with this unprecedented combination of structural challenges and black swans. But there is little evidence of real progress. Coordinated financial regulation remains a chimera, and domestic pressures are fueling the risk of protectionist measures and immigration barriers. The failures of the WTO’s Doha Round and the Copenhagen climate change talks are further evidence of the difficulties in making collective progress on global issues.

Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for the next generation of policy innovations. Specifically, it is small countries and city-states (or city-regions) that are the locus of creative thinking today. Unlike the G-20, which brings together 20 countries that represent over 80 percent of the world economy and population, small, advanced economies – those with populations of under 20 million people – represent about 2 percent of world GDP and population. Yet from Sweden and Denmark to Singapore and New Zealand, small states boast an impressive track record of sustained policy innovation in areas such as economic reform, public sector restructuring, healthcare delivery, and educational performance.

Because small countries are much more exposed and vulnerable to global developments, they have an acute understanding of globalization’s turbulent dynamics. They are open to the world by necessity, not choice, and have developed mature policy responses over a longer period of time. By the same token, small states tend to be good global citizens, both because they aren’t in a position to throw their weight around and also because they tend to have a large stake in global outcomes on issues such as climate change, exchange rate volatility and open markets.

By contrast, big countries aren’t too big to fail. They don’t face the same pressure to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities, and are often slower to innovate. Interestingly, modernization occurs in selected pockets in large countries. In America, for example, policy dynamism is a local phenomenon. Massachusetts leads America in healthcare standards, while Florida is experimenting with smart grids for its utilities. Meanwhile, parts of the Midwest and South have stagnated in recent years. Indeed, cities and provinces around the world are assuming a more important leadership role on global policy issues, such as the C40 grouping of cities on climate change. Even big countries seem to work better in smaller parts.

The same is true for global diplomacy. For decades it has been small states that have advanced the opening of global trade. And there are many more examples. The process spearheading global principles around sovereign wealth funds was hosted by Chile, the leading example of managing natural resource endowments for future generations comes from Norway and Singapore has led the world in economic development and urban technology and planning. All of these small states can and should actively export their ideas and experience around the world – even and especially to bigger states.

For these reasons, it makes sense for a “g-20” to convene as often as the G-20 does. The g-20 would comprise small and innovative states such as Denmark, Finland, Israel, New Zealand, Singapore, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, and others. It would not be a universally representative or formal body – the G-20 is neither of these things either. And the “g-20” can be more open to inviting cities and companies with breakthrough ideas into its consultations as well.

Global governance doesn’t suffer for lack of competitive groups and agendas, but there is an urgent need for groups focused on generating breakthrough ideas. The G20 is needed, but it is not enough. It is in this spirit that the “g-20” should convene to provide a platform for small states and actors to generate ideas that can overcome the inertia and positively impact the deliberations and actions of larger powers. The world needs big ideas now. They are more likely to come from small places.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Parag Khanna and David Skilling.

soundoff(15 Responses)

Aristotle and Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw the advantages of small governments. All colossal empires or vast artificial states fell victims to secessionism in the past. It will be interesting to see how long the Eurozone would survive.

Apropos the G 20, apart from the original G 7 plus Russia, the rest are new comers. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are known for their exports of natural resources. China, India, Indonesia and Turkey have their human resources to thank for their economic growth. South Korea is the only member with an industrial record.

It was a big deal for everybody. The idea of a debt clniieg is to place a limit on how much the government can borrow. and debt clniieg fight has more than a few individuals concerned about how much the United States has to pay. Many wonder if the common pick for the country that owns America China will leave the United States in its wake. But Business Insider makes a point that China is not what many believe it is. China is a player, but the real solution to the country that owns America is really America. We own our own debt.

The authors are right that small governments are more innovative because they have to be. Organizations like the G-20 cannot solve our economic problems. 1) They are wedded to an outdated economic theory, and 2) Any answers are going to be too complicated for governments to implement; they will need private sector entrepreneurs. And, any movement into the future means risk–something the big countries are not interested in.

This piece was very intriguing. Just recently I attended a discussion series on the current crises facing the U.S. and one portion focused on how solutions are being found much more readily at state and local levels. I've long felt that the ideal would be for the United States to truly be united and share more policies in common; more recently, however, I've begun to think that this just might not be possible. A sad conclusion to come to, but I think that's where we are now.

Hi,To get informed on comsuner electronics product , other than coming here on this blog, i know this site as it has a rss feed, i got daily updated electronics news.Other than that, almost the end of the month (january) and i still haven't got enough money to buy my new big tv ... it stinks :-(Anyone knows a great deal out there ?ThanksAmichele

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About us

The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.